9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Sohrab Barariga, C.A. - for the appellant. Shri V.B. Jain, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per. V. Padmanabhan :- The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 56 (SJ) CE/JPR/2018 dated 28 February 2018. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various gases falling under Chapter 28 and 29 of the Central Excise Tariff. A valuation dispute arose b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) by filing the appeal on September 19, 2016. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground of time bar. The verification report from the post office indicated that the order-in-original 31 December 2015 was received in the appellant's factory on 13 January 2016. In view of the above, the Commissioner (Appeals) took this date as the date of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fervent plea for setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). To a query from the bench, he admitted that the order-in-original dispatched by RPAD by the Department, has been shown to be received on 13 January 2016. However, he submitted that it was received by someone in the front desk who could not be identified. 5. Learned Departmental Representative justified the impugned order. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the order was dispatched by RPAD in terms of Section 37C (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delay beyond the period of one month after the normal time limit of two months. 9. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
